You smoke? You're fired!

[SezMe]

Then they'll all be shooting themselves in the foot, closing themselves off from a pool of good workers. This would leave the door wide open for competition to come in, grab these good workers, and give the other companies a run for their money. Heck, those workers themselves could even get together and do it.

I am responding to the sentence I underlined.

I can think if no greater example of the theoretical correctness of the libertarian view and no greater example of the practical incorrectness of that same view.

There are a number of reasons why this is impossible from a practical view. I will list some, but I am sure there are many more.

One problem is information. Suppose I work in a shoe factory and get laid off for smoking. How the hell am I going to find other shoe factory workers who have also been laid off for the same reason?

Another problem is the issue of barriers to entry. OK, suppose I find 1000 other workers who have been laid off for smoking. They will be from all over the country (world?). How the hell can they afford the capital to start up a new business?

And so on ..... This is, IMO, one of the central problems of libertarianism and shanek ignores it with most of his posts. The libertarian solution may be theoretically true (although that is also often not true) but practically it is just plain silly.

Shanek, take my example of 1000 shoe factory workers who have been laid off from factories around the USA. Now, how the hell are they ever going to form a competitive enterprise?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Wow, that's a great slippery slope argument you've got there.

OMG what if they start executing anyone who's ever looked at a cigarette???#!111

Libertarians believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. If I chose to smoke, and the culture shifted in such a way that nobody was hiring smokers, I guess I'd either give it up, or employ myself.

Either way, it's not my place (or yours) to abuse government to force business owners to hire people who have traits they may not like. If you want to apply pressure to them, do it through the free market (don't buy their products) or through freedom of speech (organize boycotts, protests, etc).

My last employer would have fired me the instant he found out I was gay. Should I accept that as part of freedom of the bloody market?

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

In most US states this is not a true statement about public companies. Example: "Their business, their right" does not give them the right to avoid the hiring of minorities. Many states have "right to work" laws which prevent this kind of thing. Whether or not it will be enforced when it comes to cigarettes is yet to be seen....

Ummmm... No.

'Right to work' refers to the right to work without being forced to join a union...it in no way turns control of the company over to the employees.

Protections for minorities, older workers, pregnant women, etc. are *exceptions* to the bedrock principle that the owner of the company can generally hire whomever they please.

The courts will recognize the investment that an employee has made in their job over the years, but as long as these employers follow the rules, they can probably fire these smokers, under current standards.

People have been denied jobs for being left handed, out of shape, too ugly, not smart enough, etc.

 

[ingoa]

Sex is the major contribution factor to HIV and STD's.

Not all cars have the best statistic on accidents.

There are sports that have higher risks for accidents than others.

All this leads to higher health care costs.

So will be the best worker the guy/girl that does not have sex, drives a standard Toyota and has Nordic walking as his favourite sport? What will do THAT to suicide rates?

My company pays for my work. The work is what they get. They don't pay for the rest of my time. An employer cannot regulate legal activities when he's not paying for it.

 

[wahrheit]

So you have a problem with people running their own businesses and hiring who they want?

Nobody has ANY sort of a privilege to be able to work at my store, your store, or any other store. How is this different from asking Ned to run to James' house for you to pick up your pet puppy for you and giving him 10 bucks for his time instead of asking George, because you don't like him?

Hell, I wouldn't hire a scientologist!

No, I don't have a problem with people running their own business and hire (and fire) who they want. Because I do, for example.

And asking someone I like more than someone else to pick up my pet puppy is not the same like an employer asking workers to open their briefcases or take tests because they might have smoked a cigarette at home.

I think it is more or less a human dignity, commensurability issue to me. If a guy is suspect to have stolen something, then it is okay if the police searches his briefcase. But a) not the employer and b) not because he might have smoked in his car while driving to work.

 

[CFLarsen]

This I agree with...but that's the problem with government-run healthcare. It removes personal responsibility from the equation.

Patently false.

We have state-run health care in Denmark, yet people are increasingly health-conscious.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

In most US states this is not a true statement about public companies. Example: "Their business, their right" does not give them the right to avoid the hiring of minorities. Many states have "right to work" laws which prevent this kind of thing. Whether or not it will be enforced when it comes to cigarettes is yet to be seen....

The government does not give us rights. Our rights do not come from them or any human authority. The businesses have the right to do so; it's just being infringed by these government practices.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

On the contrary, it appears to me that the company is violating privacy rights and acting illegally.

What privacy rights? It's not like they're spying on people at home. They're requiring them to take a test at work as a condition of employment.

And how are they "acting illegally"?

What right do they have to regulate free (vs. enslaved) people's behavior when they are not currently involved in a business transaction with this company (whether it be driving a company truck or calculating some accounting transactions for the company for pay during agreed upon business hours) or to search private property?

A job is a voluntary arrangement between an employer and an employee. Either side has the right to put whatever conditions they want to on this arrangement, and if the other side doesn't agree, the agreement can be terminated. That's all that's going on here. As long as they didn't sign a contract agreeing that they wouldn't do this, they can do it.

Often in most communities there are less jobs available then people looking for work.

That's just not true. Short-run, it goes in cycles, with the part of the cycle where there are less jobs than people being the shorter part. Long-run, the economy goes for full employment, and so the number of jobs and the number of people who want them are equal.

As long as, of course, you don't have a government destroying jobs with regulations, the Minimum Wage, licensing laws, zoning, etc...

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I am responding to the sentence I underlined.

I can think if no greater example of the theoretical correctness of the libertarian view and no greater example of the practical incorrectness of that same view.

There are a number of reasons why this is impossible from a practical view. I will list some, but I am sure there are many more.

One problem is information. Suppose I work in a shoe factory and get laid off for smoking. How the hell am I going to find other shoe factory workers who have also been laid off for the same reason?

Another problem is the issue of barriers to entry. OK, suppose I find 1000 other workers who have been laid off for smoking. They will be from all over the country (world?). How the hell can they afford the capital to start up a new business?

And so on ..... This is, IMO, one of the central problems of libertarianism and shanek ignores it with most of his posts. The libertarian solution may be theoretically true (although that is also often not true) but practically it is just plain silly.

Shanek, take my example of 1000 shoe factory workers who have been laid off from factories around the USA. Now, how the hell are they ever going to form a competitive enterprise?

How do you think every other business got started?

Did they pop up fully formed overnight?

Why are smokers incapable of doing what they and everybody else has been doing for hundreds of years?

 

[shanek]

One problem is information. Suppose I work in a shoe factory and get laid off for smoking. How the hell am I going to find other shoe factory workers who have also been laid off for the same reason?

Start your own shoe store. Most of them will come apply.

Another problem is the issue of barriers to entry.

Most of which are government-induced.

OK, suppose I find 1000 other workers who have been laid off for smoking. They will be from all over the country (world?). How the hell can they afford the capital to start up a new business?

There will be a number of them laid off in your area; a lot of people smoke. There will be enough of them nearby to make this a going concern.

But you're laboring under a misapprehension...the idea is not, nor is it necessary, to get every single person laid off for smoking. The idea is to start a competing business and try to attract the workers you can. Since you're not requiring that people stop smoking, you will have a larger pool of workers to choose from, putting you at a distinct advantage over your competittion.

Practically, it works. It happens in the real world. Not as often as it would if we didn't have government meddling in businesses, but it does happen. Denying it is just plain silly.

 

[shanek]

My last employer would have fired me the instant he found out I was gay. Should I accept that as part of freedom of the bloody market?

Yes. And you should also accept as part of the freedom of the market your ability to speak out and say what a scumbag he is. Let people know about it. It may attract some of the right-wing loonies, but I have a feeling it will cause him to lose more business than he gains.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

The government does not give us rights. Our rights do not come from them or any human authority.

Where do they come from then? Little green aliens? The tooth fairy? Or perhaps they're writen in the stars? Please provide evidence.

 

[crimresearch]

Don't feed the derail please.

 

[bigred]

Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

What if it were a black business owner who fired someone for demonstrating with the KKK and burning crosses in his own time? Would you still be outraged?

Good comparison.



It would not break my heart if this happened personally, but the idea of trying to dictate someone's lifestyle away from work is absurd. If you want to jack up their health care costs if they smoke, that's one thing. But if it doesn't affect their work or other's work (ie they're not smoking in the office etc)....I can't even believe it's legal.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Where do they come from then? Little green aliens? The tooth fairy? Or perhaps they're writen in the stars? Please provide evidence.

As I have explained to you numerous times, they come from our own intellect, the fact that we are able to evaluate decisions and be responsible for their outcome.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

It would not break my heart if this happened personally, but the idea of trying to dictate someone's lifestyle away from work is absurd. If you want to jack up their health care costs if they smoke, that's one thing. But if it doesn't affect their work or other's work (ie they're not smoking in the office etc)....I can't even believe it's legal.

Are you saying that, by default, all human behavior should be criminalized unless it's specifically sanctioned by law?

 

[Kerberos]

Don't feed the derail please.

You're right. sorry, I'll cease and desist. I can always tkae this fight with Shanke on a more appropriate thread.

 

[Snide]

Then how did you interpret the phrase, "how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock"? To me, that smacks of a demand for government intervention.

Shane, here is the whole paragraph:

The outright bans raise new questions about how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock. The crackdown is coming in part as a way to curb soaring health care costs, but critics say companies are violating workers' privacy rights. The zero-tolerance policies are coming as more companies adopt smoke-free workplaces.

So clearly, without cherry-picking, the phrase is simply an accurate observation. Baker even followed it up with both sides' positions in relation to such answers. Yes, it does smack of people wanting government intervention, but not from the poster or any one else on the DB (which is Nyarlathotep's original point you were refuting).

 

[shanek]

So clearly, without cherry-picking, the phrase is simply an accurate observation. Baker even followed it up with both sides' positions in relation to such answers. Yes, it does smack of people wanting government intervention, but not from the poster or any one else on the DB (which is Nyarlathotep's original point you were refuting).

Okay, perhaps I misread it.

 

[bigred]

Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Are you saying that, by default, all human behavior should be criminalized unless it's specifically sanctioned by law?

Is that supposed to make any sense at all?

I think what I was saying was clear.